It saddens me as a pest control operator to see the numerous
pest control trucks on the road each morning carrying
their load of toxins to distribute inside homes with innocent
children and pets. I know that most of those technicians
simply have no redeemable grasp of the lethal elixirs
in their tanks; apparently, their bosses prefer it that
way. From experience, I know that some technicians simply
don't care - an attitude I have seen reflected in their
company owners. I have heard technicians being warned
about the so-called "safe" use of the monstrous chemicals
sloshing around in their tanks. It seems as though a frosted
glass were placed in front of their eyes because their
vision and judgment is surely distorted when the labels
read "Danger to Humans and Domestic Animals," yet
they keep the trucks moving - droning on guided by GPS
- merging with traffic - sipping their coffee. All those
technicians march on like soldiers of doom - in a procession
prophesizing the funerals to come, slowly but surely bridging
the distance to their first victims of the day - unmindful
of their own sacrifices - making good on their leaders
subconscious promises to poison-for-profit.

Based upon the undisputed scientific and medical
facts...

"There is nothing safe about the toxic synthetic
dangerous poisonous pesticides in the pickup trucks
destined for homes, schools, and businesses;there is no
safe way to apply those unsafe chemical poisons; children
and pets are not safe in the presence of the liquid,
gel or powdered toxins or the dried toxic residue that
99.99% of all pest control companies leave behind inside
homes, schools, and businesses; dried toxic pesticides
are only invisible to the naked eye - they remain
just as dangerous, turning into gases that children
inhale while they eat, sleep, or watch tv; each home
afflicted by these poisons is contaminated and families
absorb poisons that invariably surface either in the
genes of this generation or maybe the next."

Although I address their egregious lack of accountability
to consumers elsewhere on the website, I cringe with cerebral
contempt when I hear the National Pest Management Association
refer to the pest control industry as "organized pest
control". In my professional opinion, I liken the
industry more to "organized crime". The EPA has
thousands of documents that prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the pesticides they register for use inside
homes and schools, cause cancer and kill insect, animal,
and people alike, yet the EPA defiantly refuses to prohibit
the manufacture or sale of the lethal toxins that kills
far more than bugs. There is no other industry on earth
whereby an individual can potentially poison children,
pets, water, plants, and air for a living, cause widespread
suffering and precipitate cancers, dump toxins inside
homes, and contaminate rivers lakes and streams with absolute
immunity from consumer redress. I unaffectionately term
such individuals as bioterrorists because they in fact
douse society with harsh dangerous toxic pesticides that
Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring" refers to as
biocides. Big corporations that manufacture these pesticide
environmental poisons support the efforts of the multitude
of pesticide applicators while state and federal authorities
ignore the evidence of harm, turn a blind eye, grant immunity,
and fail to enforce any legal doctrine that demands disclosure
of the toxic ingredients. Pesticide manufacturers buy
their way into society by sharing millions of dollars
in unlawful profits with the EPA. These companies make
billions of dollars in international pesticide sales -
spreading their death elixirs worldwide. Manufacturers
put cute colorful labels on cans of lethal toxins you
find on store shelves, and give commercial pesticide toxins
tough names to stoke the fire in the hordes of pesticide
applicators that never stop to read the label. Thousands
of willing pest control companies serve as minion and
douse, spray, pour, and drench society with a billion
pounds of cancer causing pesticides every year, helping
pesticide manufacturers poison every man, woman, child,
animal, plant, and water course in the world.

Over the years, I have traveled across America and
personally talked to thousands and thousands of mothers
and fathers on their doorsteps. Here are statements that
I make with absolute defensible, provable, written certainty…

1. 99% of the people I personally talk to, face-to-face
across America have no idea what those technicians are
spraying inside their homes and around their families;

2. 99% of homeowners are shocked at the truth about
the unbelievable, unimaginable, unforgivable, unmistakable
dangers of the toxic pesticides with which their pest
control company has generously saturated, poisoned,
and contaminated their homes and yards (I frequently
have to tell people not to shoot the messenger…);

3. 99% of the same men and women cannot believe that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows those
lethal liquids, powders, gels, and poison baits inside
peoples homes;

4. 99% of consumers I spoke with find it unconsionable
that grocery stores carry the same lethal poisons used
by licensed pest control companies, but displayed in
brightly colored canisters with attractive labels and
great artwork on the jugs, and allows children under
18 to purchase these poisons that are more dangerous
than cigarette smoking;

5. 99% of fathers, mothers, and grandparents are angry
at their pest control companies for placing their children
and pets in danger with either false and misleading
claims of safety, the alluding to safety by acts or
statements crafted to deceive, actions that indicate
the non-existence of danger, words or phrases that lower
the guard of occupants, the utter ignorance of the dangers
of the poisons they spray inside peoples homes, or their
intentional silence about the poisons just to collect
a check;

In the professional opinion of the author, pest control
companies that spray that toxic garbage around families
and in the environment are complicit in the deaths
of cancer victims and in part responsible for wide
spread ADHD in children. As an Environmental Steward,
I will not stand for it nor will I sit idly by while these
so-called pest management professionals destroy the only
world we have. Our pest control license is more than just
a piece of paper; it is an authoritative document that
informs consumers that we know, or should know, what we
are doing. Along with that authority comes great responsibility.
We are responsible for consumer safety and well-being.
A licensee that uses dangerous chemicals in and around
the homes of consumers, by my standard, is irresponsible,
reckless, and negligent. The mere fact that pest control
licensure gives one the authority to use deadly toxins
is by no means an acceptable excuse to use them on consumers
and then fail to disclose the dangers.

Children trust blindly. Our shortcomings mean nothing
to them; our lack of wealth or pedigree is inconsequential.
By the same measure, we owe them blind loyalty and protection
while we care for them and raise them to adulthood. When
some pest control technician, regardless of how personable
or friendly or the big smile, sprays toxic synthetic dangerous
poisonous pesticides inside our homes without full legal
and medical disclosure, by my standards, he or she has
ostensibly breached the trust and loyalty we have to our
own children. Just like many of us were fortunate enough
to have children and experience the joy, wonders, and
occasional headaches of family life in the post DDT America,
so to our children should have that joy… or at least the
choice. Pest control companies that spray those atrocious
odorless, colorless potions mitigate that joy and steal
away their choices drop by vile drop from a shiny silver
canister.

Plainly, wholesale spraying of toxic synthetic poisonous
pesticides is over; it is only a matter of time before
thousands of claims against pest control operators flood
the courts and cripple the thousands of uninitiated pest
control companies that persist in spraying lethal toxins.
The courts, environmentalists, and consumers demand and
deserve more and their collective voices are growing louder
each day.

Pesticide products containing pyrethroids are often described
by pest control operators and community mosquito management
bureaus as "safe as chrysanthemum flowers." While pyrethroids
are a synthetic version of an extract from chrysanthemum,
they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer
breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists,
increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability
to detoxify the pesticide (chemicalWatch, Synthetic
Pyrethroids, 1994). Some manufacturers use multiple
pyrethroids in their formulations that make their pesticides
even more dangerous to humans and domestic animals vis-à-vis
the widely used pesticide Talstar®Xtra that contains Zeta-Cypermethrin
and Bifenthrin, two mammalian neurotoxins and suspected
cancer causing agents or carcinogens.

Pesticide manufacturers make and sell products that promise
to kill insects via a number of "modes" of action. Mainly,
the mode of action with pyrethroids is that of a neurological
antagonist. The pyrethroids alone are not the sole cause
of the human dangers. Frequently it is the carriers. The
same manufacturers conceal up to 99.75% of the most dangerous
ingredients such as arsenic, alkaline, synthetic adhesives,
base metals, and cyanide; ingredients harmful to humans
and the environment supplanting any benefit derived from
killing insects with the product. Overwhelmingly the courts
agree with this argument. Additionally, the modes of action
are not exclusive in that target organisms and non-target
organisms such as mammals, fish, and birds suffer essentially
the same fate, but with varying degrees of neuronal dissonance
from sodium blocking, chronic respiratory distress or
mortality. For example, synthetic pyrethrins (deltamethrin,
cypermethrin, bifenthrin, fenvalerate, permethrin, resmethrin,
and sumithrin) act as neurotoxins to invertebrate
pests, fish, birds, and vertebrates such as children equally.
The EPA considers four of the more commonly used pyrethroids
suspected carcinogens. The most severe cases involve infants
and small children that cannot metabolize and excrete
pyrethroids through liver functions leading to paralysis,
muscle fibrillation, diarrhea and death due to respiratory
failure (Extension Toxicology Network, Pyrethroids
1994). Symptoms of acute exposure in infants last
only two days (Gary, infant death, and anaphylactic
respiratory distress), giving parents and caregivers
little time to respond if they are not trained to detect
symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Tests have shown latent
traces of pyrethroids in muscle and fatty tissue even
after limited exposure, such as putting a toy or food
that has fallen in a treated area into a child's mouth,
or absorbing the product through the skin from a treatment
area. In California, deltamethrin is the leading cause
of pesticide poisoning in pest control applicators (Environmental
Protection Agency 1997. W.L. Burnmman, HED). Because
pyrethroids are endocrine disrupters, they are a major
factor and contributor to breast cancer. Rightfully, the
EPA has classified some pyrethroids as possible carcinogens,
meaning that those pyrethroids have the potential to cause
cancer. The are many pesticides that are known carcinogens,
our focus here are those suspected carcinogens found in
the most commonly used pesticides most likely to end up
inside your home and on trees and plants in your environment.

The World Health Organization reports that there may be
1 million serious unintentional poisonings each year.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation in conjunction
with CDC recorded 3,721 unintentional pesticide poisonings
with 1 reported death.

In 1997, National Cancer Institute researches Sheila Hoar
Zahm, Ph.D. and Mary H. Ward, Ph.D. reviewed dozens of
reports on cancer cases and found that children appear
to be especially vulnerable to pesticides. Some research
indicated kids exposed to these substances had a four
to nine times greater risk of getting leukemia, and a
six to seven times greater risk of getting brain cancer.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more
than 25 million people are poisoned by (synthetic) pesticides
worldwide every year and according to the same agency,
more than 68,493 people will be poisoned by pesticides
today. A recent study by scientists at Rutgers University,
in Piscataway, New Jersey, found that lingering (synthetic)
pesticide residue on toys and other surfaces in a room
that has been treated is likely to cause a child between
the ages of three and six to ingest a daily does of synthetic
pesticides that is sixty-nine times higher than the dose
the EPA considers safe. For younger children who put toys
in their mouths, the dose could be as much as 211 times
higher, and in a November 1997 report, research showed
that children who developed brain tumors were twice as
likely to have had prenatal exposure to flea-and-tick
foggers and sprays containing pyrethroids.

The Pesticide Action Network estimates that worldwide
there are 200,000 deaths from pesticide poisoning each
year. 547 men, women and children will die today from
pesticide poisoning (statistically known as "acceptable
risks" for pesticide poison registration with the EPA)
Armed with irrefutable facts about the dangers of toxic
synthetic pesticides, AlwaysEco takes it message direct
to homeowners in what has been a successful campaign to
save the lives of children, pets and protect the environment.

Our philosophy is clearly one that all others should echo,
if the label does not read "Safe Around Children And Pets,"
then under no circumstances should the pesticide be used
or even approved for sale.

AlwaysEco encourages all pest control companies to change
their antiquated and negligent practices of spraying toxic
synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides in favor of safe
pesticides and integrated pest management with no additional
financial burden on the customer. Currently, the AlwaysEco
platform gives consumers a harmless option to controlling
harmful, disease causing insects.

There are those companies that alternate between safe
products and dangerous toxins. Such practices send the
wrong message to consumers. We have found that consumers
may believe that safe pesticides are optional when in
fact, safe pesticides is the only sensible way to receive
service. Pest control companies that spray toxins frequently
attempt to devolve the matter of safety to a matter of
price. That is the low road to a higher standard. The
fact is that safe products require only the ability to
read and follow directions. The difference is that safe
pesticides are not persistent. Botanical pesticides will
return to nature usually within 45 to 60 days while the
synthetic toxins can last inside your home for decades.
Alternating between a safe product and a harmful toxin
that may cause cancer or other illness is a questionable
practice that lends no credibility to the pest control
company that follows that path. The few dollars that such
a company may save on pesticides may very well cost you
your long-term health.

The harm done to consumers is of epic magnitude. In one
example, the largest pest control company in the U.S.
generates $846 million in annual revenue while contaminating
the homes of more than 3 million Americans, a heinous
deed carried out by over 5,000 uninformed men and women.
Such behemoth organizations that poison Americans en masse
are literally stuck with their past transgressions after
ignoring a mountain of research dating back to 1962 with
the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring,"
and evidence that suggested it was actually harming its
3 million customers. After a generation of more than 48
years of ignoring the dangers to human health and the
environment, it would be impossible for these big poison
sprayers to convert 1, 2 or 3 million customers to a safe
pesticide program without creating a proverbial feeding
frenzy of legal claims against themselves. The class action
against the companies that make the pesticides and those
that spray the toxins inside homes would be bigger than
that against Phillip Morris. By comparison, In the case
of Phillip Morris, consumers purchased and used the product
despite the obvious warnings. With pest control however,
consumers had no warning, are often told that synthetic
toxins are the only option, and frequently have been warned
against safer options because safety costs the pest control
company time and money. The pest control companies purchase,
mix, and then apply toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous
pesticides inside and around the homes of consumers. Many
companies fail to disclose the dangers of the pesticides
they use and thereby precipitate the inevitable harm,
which results in consumer backlash as more consumers hear
our message. The eventual reckoning is again inescapable.

As consumers become more aware of the dangers of synthetic
toxins through our message, they have also become intolerant
of pesticide contamination. For the record:
"If a pest control company sprays a single drop of
toxic synthetic pesticides in or on your property, they
have contaminated your property - it is that simple and
it is a fact." Consumers no longer listen to the lip
service paid to safety concerns by the poison sprayers
or their seasonal workers; and for good and just reason.

So-called "green" service is not enough. There is no known
reason to use synthetic dangerous toxins to control common
household pests. The litany of existing so-called "green"
programs currently on the market rely on a mix of botanicals
and synthetics; a dubious approach promulgated by some
of the largest pesticide manufacturer's in the world.
Pest control companies use the terms "eco" or "green"
to deceive consumers into believing that services rendered
are safe or harmless. Consumers rightfully associate the
terms "eco" and "green" with botanical or organic products
or services and thereby believe that an "eco" company
or a "green" service must be safe. Sadly, pest control
companies have defrauded consumers. There is no legal
or national standard for use of the words "eco" or "green"
to describe pest control services. Thus, it is too easy
for pest control companies to poison-by-deceit and maintain
unearned consumer confidence by calling their services
"green" or naming their companies "eco" something, or
calling their hybrid toxic services "eco friendly." Using
the words "eco" or "green" to describe a service that
includes toxic pesticide components with even the slightest
potential for harm is fraud and deceit. As an active Environmental
Steward, I wrote the EPA and asked that they establish
a federal standard for the word "green" as used in commerce
related to pest control services. I have yet to hear from
the EPA.

A legitimate "green" program relies on integrated pest
management (IPM) as the first line of defense against
nuisance pests and safe botanical products as the control
measure - period. Synthetic toxins are not part
of a "green" program. Mixing synthetic toxic pesticides
with safe botanical pesticides is a ruse to disguise trepidations
of pending changes in law, litigation, and lost profits
on synthetic poisons and enlightened consumers. Pest control
companies that blindly follow this type of poisoning-for-profit
leadership will and should fail, should be the subject
of intense litigation, and ultimately be disbanded to
prevent further harm to people, pets, and the environment.
The reverberating resistance from the "old guard" of pest
control is a clear indication and evidence that change
is warranted.

There are many educated pest control operators that, other
than the fact that they poison people either directly
or indirectly through applications of toxic pesticides
and contaminate homes on a massive scale in the process,
operate successful enterprises. Many of them are my colleagues
- some "frenemies", the vast majority are enemies, most are a danger to the environment and consumer wellness." Several have switched
to safer pest control practices because of my repeated
hounding or because of fears of future liability, and some due to their good ethics. Some
of them have degrees and others have decades of experience.
However, in the US, one must be a licensed degreed pharmacist
to dispense drugs only slightly more powerful than the
common aspirin. Yet, a person with practically no formal
education whatsoever, no training or verified understanding
of basic chemistry, biology or toxicology, nor any training
in CPR, nor specific training on just the ingredients
on the label, nor even a high school diploma, can, by
law, dispense the most lethal, dangerous, cancer causing
toxins on earth into the homes of Americans in most states.
These so-called technicians can and do contaminate and
recontaminate an estimated 100 million homes each year
with no hesitation. They spray, mist, dust and granularize
chemicals that are designed to kill insects but indiscriminately
kill non-target organisms including mammals, fish and
birds. In the State of Texas, an "apprentice" can actually
purchase, load, mix, transport, and apply the most lethal
toxins in American history, toxins only two generations
separated from the pesticide Sarin used in chemical warfare
during World War II - all of this without even taking
a test or showing up to prove his or her identity, or
without direct in-person supervision by anybody with an
actual pest control license! The fate of our children,
the quality of life inside our homes, and the state of
our environment rests in the hands of sometimes teenaged,
phantom, untested, unsupervised apprentices of unknown
origin and frequently of limited educational background.
Why would any state agency or the EPA permit such environmentally
defiant qualifications for apprentices that spray monstrous
amalgams of known carcinogenic character? In my professional
opinion, fewer qualifications means fewer questions for
the EPA and fewer questions means carte blanche destructive
authority with little concern for the health of the men
and women that freely give 100% of their labor to an occupation
wrought with secretly known and blatantly hazardous misfortune
concealed behind shiny pretty labels and tough sounding
brand names.

In light of the facts, it is a thoughtless act motivated
by factors other than health and safety that toxic synthetic
pesticides with that kind of potential for harm could
end up in the hands of persons ignorant of its lethal
nature. To paraphrase Rachel Carson, author of "Silent
Spring", the most dangerous chemicals known to man end
up in the hands of the least qualified people.

In many instances, pesticide apprentices and technicians
have no idea that they are in fact the unwitting, yet
quintessential harbingers of doom - indirectly dosing
thousands of citizens every day with poison as if they
were vaccinating the whole of America against a known
pandemic. The technician is not entirely to blame... not
entirely. Invariably, he or she should seek greater understanding
of the toxic chemicals; take it upon his or herself to
learn the toxicology of the pesticides they possess, and
inform consumers openly of the dangers - in a perfect
world it would be so. In many cases, to which I can personally
attest, the Pest Control Operator or company owner knows
scant more biologically than the technicians they employ
and train. The cycle continues as technicians "come of
age", start their own companies, hire, and train their
own employees.

The sentiments of providing what Rachel Carson terms as
"Biocides" to people of limited background and understanding
is dismantled with ferve by some state pest control authorities,
but it starts at the top.

The EPA is the blame. The Environmental Protection
Agency allows makers of toxic pesticides to conceal the
mixture of poisons and contaminates and impurities and
carcinogens in their toxic synthetic pesticides from consumers,
while forcing makers of safe pesticides to disclose everything.
Allowing toxin makers to conceal carcinogenic ingredients
and to market products without knowing the full costs
to human health makes the EPA complicit in the poisoning-for-profit
schemes of the pesticide makers. Organizations that support
toxic pesticide makers have gone as far as to practically
demand that "Safe" pesticides that control public disease
vectors such as mosquitoes and bedbugs re-label and perform
expensive, unneeded tests on their products to remove
the word "Safe" and add un-needed cautions to the product
labels. In the words of the Consumer Specialty Products
Association that represents more than 230 product and
pesticide manufacturers;

"Opposition to the CSPA's Petition surfaced largely
from nonconventional pesticide proponents and manufacturers
who erroneously conflate the requested Agency review
of product efficacy and stability data with the larger
testing burdens of full registration under FIRFA.
Full registration is no at issue here since the
CSPA does not question the Agency's underlying finding
that exempt products pose "little or no risk" from
a toxicological standpoint. Rather, the critical
issue is one of product performance. While taking
steps to require competing pesticides with public
health pest claims to meet a common
performance standard properly levels the commercial
playing field…"

The CSPA has toxic pesticide makers as its members. The
toxin makers are angry that botanical products that naturally
control public health vectors such as mosquitoes and bedbugs
are gaining too much popularity and widespread acceptance
and the CSPA attempts to force the EPA to place unnecessary
financial burdens on makers of safe pesticides to slow
the botanical market, and then lump synthetic toxins and
safe products in an unintelligible, confusing, anti-consumer
safety, insecticidal abyss to so-called "level the commercial
playing field" as the CSPA wrote. According to the actions
of the EPA, the CSPA, and toxic pesticide makers, your
life has a fixed price and the EPA barters with your life
as if you were a junk bond.

The CSPA attorney is a clever lady indeed. The attorney uses the word "conventional" to describe member toxins as if the poisons their members make and sell are the original pesticide products and the pesticides preferred by consumers. Unfortunately, the attorney is ill informed because botanical pesticides existed before humans and certainly before chemists. She goes on to refer to botanical pesticides as "nonconventional" inferring that safe botanical pesticides depart from the normal abilities of "conventional" poisons her members make and sell. The attorney is correct because safe botanical pesticides depart from the normal disease causing, cancer causing, and birth defect causing synthetic poisons made and sold by her members. This attorney is so good, that her letter deflects the entire topic away from the safety of the poisonous harmful toxins and redirects the entire issue to the effectiveness of the competitor's product. Arsenic and cyanide are very effective poisons that kill insect and people equally efficient. CSPA members make and sell arsenic and cyanide enriched poisonous pesticides. Thus, CSPA member poisons are the most effective at killing any living organism. Again, the CSPA attorney is correct in that member toxins are more effective because botanical pesticides only kill insects.

The lack of disclosure starts at the top with the EPA,
and filters down through state officials, pesticide officials,
licensing authorities, pest control operators and finally
the apprentice that sees no reason to tell you that the
toxic synthetic poison in his shiny canister is a danger
to you and your family and every other living organism
that comes in contact with it. Therefore, if at the top
of the pesticide chain the EPA quashes the requirement
to disclose all the ingredients of the toxins and the
associated dangers, then the requirement for education
on the dangers of the synthetic poisons is non-existent
at the bottom of the chain.

Frequently, clients ask us why the EPA would even allow
these toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides to
be used at all; in short, it's money. Pesticide manufacturers
pay up to $1 million dollars to the EPA to register just
one pesticide. Many of the manufactures have 10, 20, or
even 30 pesticides on the market. With that kind of money
at stake, the EPA, a sort of "arbitrary monarchy," looks
the other way until many deaths occur. Rachel Carson proved
that because of the rampant unchecked and uncontrolled
use of pesticides, every body of water on the planet is
contaminated, and that it would be nearly impossible to
find a lactating mother that didn't have pesticides in
her breast milk. That was in 1962. In 1962 an estimated
638 million pounds of pesticides were dumped on U.S. soil.
Today, more than 1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides
reach every corner of the U.S. annually. Just this month,
November 2010, new research in California and Texas discovered
that the worst pyrethroid insecticide ingredient "Bifenthrin"
was found in 100% of the lakes and streams tested. Bifenthrin
is the active ingredient and suspected carcinogen found
in the common pesticides that most pest control companies
generously spray. According to an article from August
2010 in the Sacramento Bee, children ingest up to 14 different
pesticides on their food. Hence, our children, as the
research has concluded, reach puberty prematurely, and
suffer from ADHD. It's worse in the formative years. Infants
and toddlers are more susceptible to pesticide-induced
disease due to their underdeveloped immune systems, lack
of body fat, and the propensity to put potentially contaminated
toys in their mouths, thus increasing their potential
intake of pesticides by up to 211 times what the EPA considers
"safe"; precipitating cancer and other pesticide-induced
diseases. That is how serious the problem is in 2010.
Clearly the EPA is aware of all this, since 3% of the
facts on the dangers of toxic pesticide exposure resides
on their webservers. Amusingly, storing this data on EPA
webservers is the unlikeliest of confessions of complicity
- the electronic version of the "smoking gun."

Lymphoma, ADHD, leukemia, breast cancer, asthma, Parkinson's
disease, pancreatic cancer, and other immunological disorders
are diseases of national concern caused by biocides referred
to as pesticides. These diseases are widespread, some
lethal, and affect men, women, and children from chronic
exposure. When does the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
evaluate toxic pesticides as the mass-scale contagions
they are? According to my interpretation of the CDC
Guide C, Part 2: Quarantine Guidelines, Smallpox Response
Plan March 20, 2003, in conjunction with
the irrefutable data on pesticide-induced diseases, the
acts of authorizing the use of, manufacturing, distributing,
and spraying toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides
(biocides) could be loosely construed as domestic bioterrorism;
all to kill common pests or increase crop yields when
both structural and agricultural pests could be controlled
by natural products or less dangerous mechanical means.
Accordingly, the same guidelines would suggest that the
CDC investigate and quarantine affected areas. Although
this interpretation may seem broad upon first glance,
look closer. The CDC's normal response to any mass-scale
contaminate (1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides is
a mass-scale contaminate) is to calculate the probability
of spread, seek containment, and determine the potential
for harm outside the containment area. That would be impossible
in the case of toxic pesticides because the whole country,
every man, woman, and child, and virtually every body
of water within our borders represents ground zero (Rachel
Carson, "Silent Spring" 1962) and the contamination
spreads via air and water to other parts of the world
according to the findings thoroughly researched by Rachel
Carson and her team of biologists in 1954. When 1 billion
pounds of toxic pesticides are sprayed annually, the contamination
is impossible to contain; thus even the CDC would be unable
to stop the spread of biocides. For reference, visit the
CDC and search for "Quarantine Standards."

The EPA may have the key to cancer. There are a
billion irrefutable arguments indicating that the EPA
has disenfranchised every man, woman, and child in America.
It cannot be overstated that toxic synthetic pesticides,
according to the empirical research data, are a major
contributor to and cause of cancer in most all studies
(we provide over 300 medical studies at this website
alone). Thus, one could reasonably conclude that if
the EPA banned all toxic synthetic pesticides containing
suspected carcinogens, secretive poisons, impurities,
waste chemicals, arsenic and cyanide, and required proof
of non-carcinogenic propensity before registering a pesticide
versus after epidemic numbers of sickness and death from
cancer purportedly related to synthetic pesticides, that
the rate of cancer in the U.S. would presumably drop accordingly.
Israel banned Benzene
Hexachloride, DDT, and Lindane in 1978. By 1986 Israel
noted a thirty-three percent drop in breast cancer for
women ages 25-34 (Dr. Sherrill Sellman Breast
Cancer Deception). The EPA perpetrates a cruel
and unjust joke on the American public by remaining silent
about its important role in cancer. The EPA fundamentally
could reduce the occurrence of cancer; cancer rates
that increased exponentially with the advent of greater
numbers of synthetic pesticides; cancer that has increased
at a rate coincidentally proportionate to the number of
EPA registered toxic synthetic pesticides and the annual
tonnage of synthetic pesticide applications. The scientists
and chemists at the EPA are a lot smarter than I on the
subject of cancer and pesticides. However, the EPA sits
idly by while Americans spend over $100 billion dollars
on cancer treatment and over $4 billion on cancer research
(National Cancer Institute July 13, 2010). Toxic
pesticide manufacturers should pick up the tab. Their
profitable poisons create the health problems in the first
place. Tobacco companies recompensed for their actions
- what's the difference? The difference is that tobacco
companies did not pay individual states directly. The
states merely taxed tobacco products as the states would
tax any other item. With the EPA, the story is quite different.
The toxic pesticide manufacturers pay money to the EPA
to spread their poisons with impunity. Millions and millions
of dollars changes hands annually. Thus, by law, the EPA
is incapable of representing the interest of the American
public. Therein a conflict of interest exists that is
undeniably bigger than Mount Everest. We are in so much
trouble as a society when the very agency created to protect
us from chemical poisons takes billions of dollars from
the people that poison us. In legal terms, we call that
a conspiracy and bribery.

For as long as the EPA allows toxic synthetic pesticides
to rain down on American cities, citizens, soil, and water,
the EPA will continue to frustrate the American public
that seeks cures for diseases that have a never-ending
supply of causes… 1 billion pounds of toxic synthetic
pesticides with hundreds of brand names and of known carcinogenic
character.

In all fairness to the EPA, the EPA allows a concerned
consumer to request the full ingredients from a toxic
pesticide label as the result of a lawsuit by a consumer
group. In all fairness to consumers, why then are the
toxic ingredients still kept secret when anyone, including
a competing toxin maker can simply make the request to
the EPA and get the list of ingredients for practically
nothing? Any disclosure of the toxic amalgamations mutes
the argument of concealing trade secrets from competitors,
thus freedom of information disclosure is no different
than simply putting the ingredient list on the label -
in theory. The reason is again disclosure. When the EPA
denies New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer access
to the inert ingredient list of toxic pesticides, what
chance does the average citizen have of getting the ingredients?
As the former New York Attorney General stated in May
2000, it could take months or years to get the list of
ingredients if at all. Furthermore the Attorney General
echoed the sentiment of many environmentalist and non-governmental
organizations in that the EPA takes too long to respond
to requests which could pose dangers in the form of lack
of available information to doctors and poison control
centers. A small percentage of toxin makers disclose their
ingredients, but it is almost anecdotal. Those that disclose
appear to be sacrificial lambs that are supposed to quench
the thirst of the public based on the false assumption
that all other pesticides must have the same ingredients
since all of the pesticides do about the same thing...
kill bugs. Nothing could be farther from true. If all
toxin makers were to publicly disclose every ingredient
and medical doctors and researchers could test the toxins
properly as one continuous chain of related toxins that
far exceed any established tolerances through compounding
effects, the case against Phillip Morris would appear
nothing more than an argument over a five-dollar bet by
comparison because pesticides affect every man, woman,
child, plant, animal and water resource on earth, whereas
cigarette smoking affected smokers and those in their
immediate surroundings (approximately 50 million people
at the time). Even the health care industry would perhaps
jump into the fray against the toxin makers.

In North Carolina, the pesticide authorities attack in
writing botanical pest control products in favor of toxic
synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides. The reason is
practically self-evident yet lugubrious. Research Triangle,
North Carolina homesteads the largest toxic pesticide
makers in the United States, employing approximately 1/3rd
the population in the area. Even the building codes lend
themselves to termite infestation to keep the poison makers
happy selling lethal termiticide, while pest control companies
spray the toxins with near total impunity. At no time
did the health of the average citizen appear a concern
of any demonstrable notability. In fact, from all the
tests I have taken in many different states, I can say
with absolute certainty that on no occasion did the label
for a safe botanical product appear in the testing manuals,
only the labels for the more favored toxic synthetic dangerous
poisonous pesticides. However, placing the label in the
testing manual was not intended to emphasize consumer
safety or even to discuss the dangers of the ingredients,
but to test the examinee on proper dosing and mixing instructions.
For the lack of a less blasphemes phrase… oh my God!
The state tests examinees to ensure that they will not
ask questions and will mindlessly follow directions on
how to contaminate and poison every living thing that
comes within spray stream distance of their shining silver
canisters. These acts are the epitome of poisoning-for-profit.

The specimen label on every EPA registered pesticide lists
a number of warnings and a "signal" word. Depending on
the level of toxicity, the signal world could be caution
- indicating the least deadly toxin, warning, danger,
or danger/poison - the most deadly toxin. Next, the label
gives a warning referencing the hazards of the products.
Now, a signal word indicating harm and a warning indicating
harm appear on the same pesticide label, but the chances
that you will get a copy of that label is practically
zero. One of my former clients actually refused to give
the labels to his customers because he felt it unnecessary
to "alarm" the customer. Another of my clients actually
told me that I was "scaring" people by giving customers
the label and truthfully answering questions about the
toxins. Clearly, these men understood, at least in part,
that what they sprayed in the homes of their customers
and around innocent children and pets was a toxic combination
of impurities, suspected or known carcinogens, arsenic,
solvents, adhesives, cyanide, un-milled salwater diatomite,
and run-of-the-mill dangerous poisons. Ignorance is not
bliss. If the label reads "Danger to Humans and Domestic
Animals," the consumer has a right to know that information
and the pest control company has an obligation to disclose.
Disclosure is unprofitable to these outfits and so they
fail to disclose and fein ignorance instead. The attempts
at "not knowing" is supported by organizations such as
the CSPA that try and hedge pending legislation for the
disclosure of toxic pesticide ingredients by lumping safe
botanical pesticides in with profoundly unsafe toxins
made by the enemies of the environment. Should that happen,
it kills a viable argument by makers of safe pesticides
which is the full disclosure of "inert" ingredients in
toxic pesticides because now, botanical pesticides are
no longer required to disclose and thereafter required
to place an unwarranted "caution" warning on a completely
safe pesticide. The leveling of the commercial playing
field, or protecting the poison makers profits is more
important than your life according to the acts of poison
makers and their supporters. Failure to disclose the label
and its well-publicized dangers is poisoning-by-deceit
and borders on criminal negligence and fraud. In this
instance, I suggest criminal negligence because poisoning
an individual is a crime always found in the penal code,
not a civil tort found in administrative or civil law.
By my estimates, if a pest control company sprayed toxins
on a property without disclosure and the occupants became
ill, then it becomes a matter for criminal prosecution
first and civil prosecution later. In my professional
opinion, my analogy would stand up to scrutiny because
there are so many precedents that it warrants a second
look. You may have a license to carry a concealed weapon,
but you are responsible for your negligent discharge of
the weapon. You may have a license to operate a motor
vehicle, but you are responsible for your negligent operation
of the motor vehicle. You may also have a license to spray
pesticides, but you are responsible for the negligent
spraying of your pesticides. The license itself should
not bestow immunity upon the licensee for criminal acts.
Thus, issuing a license without a test or even in-person
identity verification is as reckless as the acts perpetrated
by the individual that receives the license. The reckoning
comes full circle as consumers realize that their families
have been poisoned and their homes and lands contaminated
forever by the holders of pest control licenses who are
unfit legally to dispense drugs less dangerous than the
pesticides themselves.

Where does all this leave the consumer and his or her
family? First, consumers and homeowners have rights and
those rights have been and will continue to be trampled
until consumers take definitive measures to stop the needless
poisoning of their homes, schools and land. The first
step is fire existing pest control companies that purchase,
store, mix, or apply toxic pesticides, then weigh your
options for legal recourse. Remember that the effects
of your exposure to toxic pesticides may not be known
for years and by refusing to do business with enterprises
that spray toxins, consumers send a message that poisoning-for-profit
is unacceptable.

This article does not constitute legal advice, merely
concepts and ideas that are the sole property of the author.